Posted on 02/19/2003 10:07:32 AM PST by Matchett-PI
Did any of you hear Rush reading the Stratfor report on Chirac's long-time connection (since the 70's) to Saddam Hussein on the air?
If not, he will have it posted on his web site around 6 PM today.
LOL. Life be good, huh?
PBS Frontline episode, "The Arming of Iraq" (1990) detailed much of the conventional and so-called "dual-use" weapons sold to Iraq. The public learned from other sources that at least since mid-1980s the US was selling chemical and biological material for weapons to Iraq and orchestrating private sales. These sales began soon after current Secretary of State, Donald Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad in 1985 and met with Saddam Hussein as a private businessman on behalf of the Reagan administration. In the last major battle of the Iran-Iraq war, some 65,000 Iranians were killed, many by gas.
Now, I know you will say that the NYT and PBS are not unimpeachable, since they are hardly objective and have a specific agenda. So I invite you to impeach them. SECDEF Donald Rumsfeld is also not unimpeachable, as he also not objective, and also has a specific agenda. Also, since he is mentioned specifically, he is not objective.
Why is it so farfetched?
My company used to get Euro's for 88 cents apiece (1 year ago). They now cost $1.07 per Euro. It's killing the U.S. Dollar, and has been for months now. Wake up.
This is what I've been saying...I think the protection of the economic might of the US dollar is a great reason to go to war.
You do have a problem with being able to see the *big picture*, don't you.
But you're an unrealistic isolationist, so it isn't surprising.
Strong Dollar. Weak Dollar. There Are Many Sides to This Coin.
If you know, or if any other FReeper knows, one paragraph states . . .
Other dimensions of the relationship were decided on during this visit and implemented in the months afterward. France agreed to sell Iraq $1.5 billion worth of weapons -- including the integrated air defense system that was destroyed by the United States in 1991, about 60 Mirage F1 fighter planes, surface-to-air missiles and advanced electronics. The Iraqis, for their part, agreed to sell France $70 million worth of oil.
Is the $70 million dollar figure a typo? Should it be $700 million? Or even higher?
The reason I ask is an investigative snoop-friend of mine is digging like a groundhog into Chirac's financial background doing research for a book. He's in Europe now rooting around. He sent me a cryptic email the other day saying he found something about an "extraordinary amount of money" that showed up "for Chirac's personal use in 1975" . . . which, I think is the time period we're talking about here, right? Anyhoo . . . he said something about an "alleged" and "curious" oil deal that might never have "really happened."
Anyone know anything about this? I've done the Google-search and all the things my simple mind can think of doing . . . and I've come up with zip.
I think the "currency of choice" may well have been Swiss francs --- delivered by Saddam to Chirac's account in Zurich.
Read the Stratfor article before you pop off. It's pretty damning.
The United States has been getting slapped by our friends and enemies long enough. 9-11 woke GW up. 9-11 woke you up. 9-11 woke me up. And, most importantly, 9-11 woke up the majority of Americans.
The world had best take heed . . . Pee Wee Clinton and his gang of apologists are no longer in charge. There's a new Sheriff in town.
I think my problem with regards to the "big picture", is that I may see TOO big of a picture. Taken in isolation, wiping out Iraq, establishing an Iraqi democracy, and stationing a quasi-permanent occupying ("peacekeeping") force in Iraq (quasi-permanent like the one in South Korea)will solve the problem in...Iraq. Nowhere else.
So what happens after Iraq? Iran is right next door; the Saudis are in the area, as is Pakistan, Syria, and the Palestinians. I guess we would invade, overthrow and occupy them next. Then, of course, we would have to deal with India, China, Egypt...and since, as alliances change constantly (your own point), we have the ever-changing geopolitical picture to deal with.
Of course, the Mid East LOVES the US; the permanent presence of US soldiers in their backyards -- economics notwithstanding -- will only make that love grow. Our troops will be sitting targets for any half-baked raghead with a coke bottle and gasoline.
My problem with this whole plan is that there has been no dicussion of "what next". Are we going to be there forever? How will we know when we are done? We have this grand picture of rifing victoriously through Baghdad with the natives throwing flowers at us. I'm sorry, that seems unrealistic to me.
We will, undoubtedly, defeat whatever tincan army Hussein throws at us. But I don't think the Iraqi people are going to welcome us with open arms, even if they are happy to get rid of Hussein. And the fighting in the streets will be tough.
What I would like to see is a revision of American policy with regards to that region, a return to George Washington's advice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.